Issues : EE revisions
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The fact that Chopin did not provide in the title of his Variations either the composer or the title of the opera from which the theme was coming proves the duet's huge popularity in the musical world of both Warsaw and Vienna. It was the English publisher who added the relevant pieces of information; moreover, he embellished the title with a few impressive phrases – the piece was described as an "homage to Mozart" (Hom[m]age à Mozart), the variations were "grand and brilliant" (Grandes variations brillantes), while the duet from Don Giovanni was the composer's favourite (Duo favorit). Chopin tried to deal with Wessel's pompous, arbitrary titles in later years, yet without much success – cf. the letter to Fontana of October 9, 1841: "if he [Wessel] made losses on my compositions, it must have been for the silly titles he provided them with in spite of my telling him not to and in spite of Mr Stapelton mocking them several times; had I listened to my heart, I would not have sent him a single piece more after those titles." Therefore, it could be concluded that Chopin also did not have any influence on the changes Wessel made to the dedications, although in this case there are no traces of the composer's possible protests to confirm it. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Dedications |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
We consider the version of A (→GE1) to be erroneous, which is indicated by the orchestral part – an F in cellos and double basses is both in the later version of AsI and in the voices of GE and FE. The correct version of FE almost certainly resulted from Chopin's correction, probably introduced still into the copy of GE1 serving as the basis for that edition – there are no visible traces of changes in print. The corrections present in GE2 (→GE3,FESB) and EE2 (→EE3) can be considered revisions on the basis of orchestral parts. In the case of GE2, Chopin's intervention is also likely; his participation in the preparation of that edition is generally questionable, yet it cannot be excluded to a limited extent. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of GE |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The AsI version is the original redaction of the bass part in this bar. In the main text we include the bottom notes of the octaves added – almost certainly by Chopin – in the stage of proofreading FE1. The addition was also introduced into EE3, most probably pursuant to FE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Bass register changes , Abbreviated octaves' notation |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 11
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In the main text we add a cautionary category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 14
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In the main text we keep the ambiguous Chopinesque abbreviation leggier. We assume that the abbreviation most likely stands for the adverb leggier(a)mente, which Chopin used a few times in his other early works (cf., e.g. the Concerto in F minor, Op. 21, III mov., b. 81). Another possibility could be leggierissimo, which, Chopin, however, would abbreviate as leggieriss. – cf. b. 55 and 367. The word leggiero featured in EE almost certainly does not literally correspond to Chopin's intention but, practically, being synonymous with leggiermente, it can be considered an unequivocal version of the Chopinesque abbreviation. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
to f. In 
